Making the Case for Critical Q Methodology

Literature Cited

• Addams, H. 2000. Q methodology. In Social discourse and environmental policy: An application of Q methodology, ed. H. Addams and J. L. R. Proops, 14–40. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Addams, H. and J. L. R. Proops, eds. 2000. Social discourse and environmental policy: An application of Q methodology. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Agrawal, A. 2005. Environmentality: Technologies of government and the making of subjects. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barry, J., and J. Proops. 1999. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics 28 (3):337–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brannstrom, C. 2011. A Q-method analysis of environmental governance discourses in Brazil’s northeastern soy frontier. The Professional Geographer 63 (4):531–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brannstrom, C., W. Jepson, and N. Persons. 2011. Social perspectives on wind-power development in West Texas. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101 (4):839–51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2011.568871.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, S. R. 1980. Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, S. R. 1984. Q-analysis: Caveat emptor. Operant Subjectivity 8 (1):6–17.
   Google Scholar
• Bryan, J., and D. Wood. 2015. Weaponizing maps: Indigenous peoples and counterinsurgency in the Americas. New York: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman, A. 2006. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research 6 (1):97–113. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877.
   Google Scholar
• Clare, S., N. Krogman, and K. J. Caine. 2013. The “balance discourse”: A case study of power and wetland management. Geoforum 29:40–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 2008. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Cotton, M. 2015. Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: A Q-method study of environmental discourses. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 47 (9):1944–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cotton, M., and P. Devine-Wright. 2011. Discourses of energy infrastructure development: A Q-method study of electricity transmission line siting in the UK. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 4 (4):942–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLyser, D., and D. Sui. 2014. Crossing the qualitative-quantitative divide III: Enduring methods, open geography, participatory research, and the fourth paradigm. Progress in Human Geography 38 (2):294–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S., and S. Niemeyer. 2008. Discursive representation. American Political Science Review 102 (4):481–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duenckmann, F. 2010. The village in the mind: Applying Q-methodology to re-constructing constructions of rurality. Journal of Rural Studies 26 (3):284–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eden, S., A. Donaldson, and G. Walker. 2005. Structuring subjectivities? Using Q methodology in human geography. Area 37 (4):413–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, G., J. Barry, and C. Robinson. 2007. Many ways to say “no”, different ways to say “yes”: Applying Q methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (4):517–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elwood, S. 2009. Mixed methods: Thinking, doing, and asking in multiple ways. In The Sage handbook of qualitative geography, ed. D. Delyser, S. Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Crang, and L. McDowell, 94–114. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• England, K. V. L. 1994. Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. The Professional Geographer 46 (1):80–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. 2013. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. 3rd ed. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, J., and K. Brown. 2009. Wind energy on the Isle of Lewis: Implications for deliberative planning. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 41 (10):2516–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forrester, J., B. Cook, L. Bracken, S. Cinderby, and A. Donaldson. 2015. Combining participatory mapping with Q-methodology to map stakeholder perceptions of complex environmental problems. Applied Geography 56:199–208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frate, C. A., and C. Brannstrom. 2015. Will Brazil’s ethanol ambitions undermine its agrarian reform goals? A study of social perspectives using Q-method. Journal of Rural Studies 38:89–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frate, C. A., and C. Brannstrom. 2017. Stakeholder subjectivities regarding barriers and drivers to the introduction of utility-scale solar photovoltaic power in Brazil. Energy Policy 111 (2017):346–52.
   Google Scholar
• Fry, M., C. Brannstrom, and M. Sakinejad. 2017. Suburbanization and shale gas wells: Patterns, planning perspectives, and reverse setback policies. Landscape and Urban Planning 168:9–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gee, J. P. 2010. An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gould, P. 1981. Letting the data speak for themselves. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 71 (2):166–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gould, P. 1985. A new Q too? Operant Subjectivity 8 (2):42–53.
   Google Scholar
• Gram-Hanssen, I. 2019. The role of flexibility in enabling transformational social change: Perspectives from an Indigenous community using Q-methodology. Geoforum 100:10–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, C. 2008. Identifying farmer attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) crops in Scotland: Are they pro- or anti-GM? Geoforum 39 (1):204–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, S. 1992. The west and the rest: Discourse and power. In Formations of modernity, ed. S. Hall and B. Gieben, 257–332. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press/The Open University.
   Google Scholar
• Hawthorne, T., J. Krygier, and M.-P. Kwan. 2008. Mapping ambivalence: Exploring the geographies of community change and rails-to-trails development using photo-based Q method and PPGIS. Geoforum 39 (2):1058–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jepson, W., C. Brannstrom, and N. Persons. 2012. “We don’t take the pledge”: Environmentality and environmental skepticism at the epicenter of U.S. wind energy development. Geoforum 43 (4):851–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwan, M.-P. 2004. Beyond difference: From canonical geography to hybrid geographies. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94 (4):756–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 1987. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, V. 1995. The politics of difference: Examining the quantitative/qualitative dualism in post-structuralist feminist research. The Professional Geographer 47 (4):449–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lê, T., and Q. Lê. 2009. Critical discourse analysis: An overview. In Critical discourse analysis: An interdisciplinary perspective, ed. T. Lê, Q. Lê, and M. Short, 3–15. New York: Nova Science.
   Google Scholar
• Lehrer, N., and G. Sneegas. 2018. Beyond polarization: Using Q methodology to explore stakeholders’ views on pesticide use and related risks for agricultural workers in Washington State’s tree fruit industry. Agriculture and Human Values 35 (1):131–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López-i-Gelats, F., J. D. Tàbara, and J. Bartolomé. 2009. The rural in dispute: Discourses of rurality in the Pyrenees. Geoforum 40 (4):602–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, J. 2006. Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research 6 (1):9–25.
   Google Scholar
• McKeown, B., and D. Thomas. 2013. Q methodology. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Nightingale, A. 2003. A feminist in the forest: Situated knowledges and mixing methods in natural resource management. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 2 (1):77–90.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neill, S. J., M. Boykoff, S. Niemeyer, and S. A. Day. 2013. On the use of imagery for climate change engagement. Global Environmental Change 23 (2):413–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormerod, K. J. 2017. Common sense principles governing potable water recycling in the southwestern U.S.: Examining subjectivity of water stewards using Q methodology. Geoforum 86:76–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, N., and C. Hardy. 2002. Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Previte, J., B. Pini, and F. Haslam-McKenzie. 2007. Q methodology and rural research. Sociologia Ruralis 47 (2):135–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramlo, S. 2016. Mixed method lessons learned from 80 years of Q methodology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10 (1):28–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robbins, P. 2000. The practical politics of knowing: State environmental knowledge and local political economy. Economic Geography 76 (2):126–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robbins, P. 2006. The politics of barstool biology: Environmental knowledge and power in greater Northern Yellowstone. Geoforum 37 (2):185–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robbins, P., and R. Krueger. 2000. Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography. The Professional Geographer 52 (4):636–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocheleau, D. 1995. Maps, numbers, text, and context: Mixing methods in feminist political ecology. The Professional Geographer 47 (4):458–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose, G. 2001. Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sandbrook, C. G., J. A. Fisher, and B. Vira. 2013. What do conservationists think about markets? Geoforum 50:232–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmolck, P. 2002. PQMethod Software. Accessed February 28, 2019. http://schmolck.userweb.mwn.de/qmethod/.
   Google Scholar
• Small, M. L. 2011. How to conduct a mixed methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly growing literature. Annual Review of Sociology 37 (1):57–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steacy, C. N., B. S. Williams, C. L. Pettersen, and H. E. Kurtz. 2016. Placing the “analyst” in discourse analysis: Iteration, emergence, and dialogicity as situated process. The Professional Geographer 68 (1):166–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sui, D., and D. DeLyser. 2012. Crossing the qualitative–quantitative divide I: Hybrid geographies, the spatial turn, and volunteered geographic information (VGI). Progress in Human Geography 36 (1):111–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaas, J., P. P. J. Driessen, M. Giezen, F. van Laerhoven, and M. J. Wassen. 2019. “Let me tell you about your problems”. Using Q methodology to elicit latent problem perceptions about invasive alien species. Geoforum 99:120–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. 2008. Discourse and power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Waitt, G. 2010. Doing Foucauldian discourse analysis: Revealing social realities. In Qualitative research methods in human geography, ed. I. Hay, 217–40. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ward, L. 2013. Eco-governmentality revisited: Mapping divergent subjectivities among integrated water resource management experts in Paraguay. Geoforum 46:91–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward, L., M. B. Anderson, S. J. Gilbertz, J. McEvoy, and D. M. Hall. 2017. Public stealth and boundary objects: Coping with integrated water resource management and the post-political condition in Montana’s portion of the Yellowstone River watershed. Geoforum 83:1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watts, S., and P. Stenner. 2012. Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method & interpretation. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Wodak, R. 2001. What CDA is about: A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In Methods of critical discourse analysis, ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 1–13. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Wolsink, M., and S. Breukers. 2010. Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind power: An international study of stakeholder perspectives. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53 (5):535–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods, M. 2010. Performing rurality and practicing rural geography. Progress in Human Geography 34 (6):835–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar